DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Plants and Fish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Plants and Fish Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Plants and Fish Rules for Aquatic Plant Removal and Control July 2015 2nd Edition The 2nd edition of the July 2015 Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet corrects errors in the Recommended Work Times table of the original edition. The 2nd edition replaces the original version and must be used when conducting aquatic plant control or removal projects under authority of the pamphlet. Cover graphic of Eurasian Water Milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum provided by University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Jim Unsworth, Director 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501 (360) 902-2534 www.wdfw.wa.gov Persons with a disability may request a copy of this publication in an alternative format by calling (360) 902-2349 or TDD (360) 902-2207. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife receives financial assistance from the federal government and adheres to the following federal laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The federal government and WDFW prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, parental status, reprisal, and genetic information. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity , service, or facility, please contact the WDFW ADA Program Manager, PO Box 43139, Olympia, WA 98504, or write to: Chief, Public Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington DC 20240. Table of Contents About This Pamphlet ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Limit of WDFW Authority .............................................................................................................................. 2 Other Permits May Be Necessary ................................................................................................................. 2 Aquatic Vegetation and Fish ......................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methods and Requirements for Aquatic Plant Control and Removal .......................................................... 4 Removal of Aquatic Plants by Hand ....................................................................................................... 4 Bottom Barriers and Screens ................................................................................................................. 5 Weed Rolling ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Mechanical Harvesting and Cutting ....................................................................................................... 7 Rotovation ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Aquatic plant dredging ............................................................................................................................ 8 Water level manipulation ....................................................................................................................... 9 Recommended Work Times ........................................................................................................................ 10 About This Pamphlet Effective July 1, 2015 the 2015 Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet replaces the previous version of the pamphlet published in 1998 (APF-1-98). It serves as the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for some types of aquatic weed or plant control and removal including physical and mechanical methods. It does not address using grass carp, herbicides, or water column dye. You may find information regarding those methods at Washington Department of Ecology’s website on aquatic plant management at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/index.html. Depending on the method you select to control aquatic noxious weeds or beneficial plants, an individual HPA may be required. If you use this pamphlet as your HPA for aquatic weed or plant control, please review it thoroughly and follow all applicable provisions. You may download, save and print a copy of the Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet from the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/aquatic_plant_removal/index.html or request one from a WDFW office. The administrative rules adopted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) addressed in this pamphlet are included in WAC 220-660-290. This pamphlet does not contain information about how to identify aquatic noxious weeds or beneficial plants, or make recommendations on which control method would be best in a specific situation. There are many online and other resources available that you may wish to consult when deciding whether or how to control aquatic plants. One such resource is Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality 2015 Aquatic Plants and Fish Pamphlet Page 1 website, specifically its pages titled Aquatic Plants, Algae, and Lakes at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/plants.html. Limit of WDFW Authority • An activity conducted solely to remove or control spartina does not require an HPA. • An activity conducted solely to remove or control purple loosestrife and that is performed with hand-held tools or equipment, or equipment carried by you when used, does not require an HPA. • Any other activity conducted solely to remove or control aquatic noxious weeds or aquatic beneficial plants requires either a copy of the current Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet available from the department or an individual HPA. • Information on applying for individual HPAs and how to contact a WDFW biologist is available at the following WDFW website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. Other Permits May Be Necessary The Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet pertains only to WDFW’s administration of hydraulic projects regulated under the Revised Code of Washington (Chapter 77.55 RCW). It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any additional permits or authorization from other government agencies (local, state and/or federal) and land owners that may be necessary for this project. The Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at http://www.oria.wa.gov/site/alias__oria/347/default.aspx can assist you in determining your permit needs. Aquatic Vegetation and Fish Beneficial plants play a significant role in lakes and streams by providing food and habitat for fish life, stabilizing shorelines, and contributing to nutrient cycling. Sometimes beneficial plants can grow in overabundance, usually because of excessive inputs of nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus. In contrast, aquatic noxious weeds can threaten native vegetation, fish life, and the habitat that supports fish life. Often the best approach to controlling and removing aquatic plants is developing a vegetation management plan. A vegetation management plan is a comprehensive approach to controlling aquatic plants where all strategies are considered and usually some combination of techniques is selected and implemented. These plans should be based on the biology and ecology of the aquatic plant to be controlled and the environmental characteristics of the site. Integrated vegetation management planning is encouraged to comprehensively address aquatic plant problems for a watercourse. 2015 Aquatic Plants and Fish Pamphlet Page 2 Definitions The following definitions apply to aquatic plant control and removal activities that you conduct under authority of the Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Terms in bold font throughout this pamphlet are defined here. Aquatic beneficial plant: all native and nonnative aquatic plants except those on the state noxious weed lists in WAC 16-750-005, 16-750-011, and 16-750-015. Aquatic noxious weed: an aquatic plant on the state noxious weed lists in WAC 16-750-005, 16-750- 011, and 16-750-015. Aquatic plant: a native or nonnative emergent, submersed, partially submersed, free-floating, or floating-leaved plant species that is dependent upon fresh, brackish, or marine water ecosystems and includes all stages of development and parts. Bottom barrier or screen: sheets of synthetic or natural fiber material used to cover and kill plants growing on the bottom of a watercourse. Diver-operated dredging: the use of portable suction or hydraulic dredges held by SCUBA divers to remove aquatic plants. Early infestation: a stage of development, life history, or area of coverage of an aquatic noxious weed that makes one hundred percent control and eradication likely to occur. Entrained: the entrapment of fish into a watercourse diversion that has no screen, into high velocity water along the face of an improperly designed screen, or into the vegetation cut by a mechanical harvester. Eradication: to eliminate an aquatic noxious weed within an area of infestation. Hydraulic project approval (HPA): A written approval for a hydraulic project signed by the director of WDFW or the director's designee; or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • F a I Ttjf Z
    .4 Z T4FIIiL IF A L-JI TTJF L iJ OF TH -- -(AR'PF.G1L -)u 5TATE EUREU 5TAT15T5 & IMMIGPAflON C:F )D STATL Of WASHINGTON DLP\RTh1ENT OT STATE. DTJREATJ0rSTATISTICS '&INNIGMTION LNJ-LOWELL, 5tCP.ETARY Ok' 5TAf EX OFFIC[O CO14NIS5IONPAL I. KTP. USTS ILAIU.Y F6LLk', DCPUTY COIISS]ONL TABLE OF CONTENTS. Paf)e List of Full Page Illustrations 3 The Evergreen State 5 Our Mountains 9 Washington Forests 15 The Climate 19 Puget Sound 25-38 Ideal for Yachting and Cruising 29 Hood Canal 29 Other Trips 31 Commerce 32 The East Shores 32 The Islands 33 San Juan Group 33 Whidby Island 36 Other Islands 36 Olympic Peninsula . 38 The Harbor Country 40-48 Grays Harbor 43 Willapa Bay 46 Mount Rainier National Park 49 The Columbia River 54 The Inland Empire 63-80 Chief Features 64 How to Reach Them 64 The Yakima Valley 65 The Wenatchee Valley 67 Lake Chelan 68 The Okanogan Highlands 70 The Spokane Country 75 The Wheat Plateau 79 The Walla Walla Country 80 The Columbia River 80 Our Scenic Highways 81-89 The Pacific Highway 81 Sunset Highway 84 Inland Empire Highway 86 Olympic, National Park, and Other Highways 89 A Sportsman's Paradise 91 Cities and Suggested Trips 95 AlaskaOur Ally 112 Map Showing Principal Highways FULL PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS. Cover Design (a water color) Miss Zola F. Gruhike Engravings By Western Engraving & Colortype Co., Seattle THREE-COLOR HALFTONES. Title. Photographer. Page The Rhododendron (C.) Asahel Curtis. -. .Frontispiece Lake Chelan (C.) Kiser Photo Co 8 A Forest Stream Curtis & Miller 16 A Puget Sound Sunset Webster & Stevens 32 Mount Rainier and Mirror LaKe (C.) Curtis & Miller 49 Sunnyside Canal (C.) Asahel Curtis 64 Priest Rapids 80 Columbia River from White Salmon (C.) .Kiser Photo Co 96 ONE-COLOR HALFTONES.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining
    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Waters of the United States in Washington with Green Sturgeon Identified As NMFS Listed Resource of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Waters of the United States in Washington with Green Sturgeon identified as NMFS Listed Resource of Concern for EPA's PGP (1) Coastal marine areas: All U.S. coastal marine waters out to the 60 fm depth bathymetry line (relative to MLLW) from Monterey Bay, California (36°38′12″ N./121°56′13″ W.) north and east to include waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington. The Strait of Juan de Fuca includes all U.S. marine waters: Clallam County east of a line connecting Cape Flattery (48°23′10″ N./ 124°43′32″ W.) Tatoosh Island (48°23′30″ N./124°44′12″ W.) and Bonilla Point, British Columbia (48°35′30″ N./124°43′00″ W.) Jefferson and Island counties north and west of a line connecting Point Wilson (48°08′38″ N./122°45′07″ W.) and Partridge Point (48°13′29″ N./122°46′11″ W.) San Juan and Skagit counties south of lines connecting the U.S.-Canada border (48°27′27″ N./ 123°09′46″ W.) and Pile Point (48°28′56″ N./123°05′33″ W.), Cattle Point (48°27′1″ N./122°57′39″ W.) and Davis Point (48°27′21″ N./122°56′03″ W.), and Fidalgo Head (48°29′34″ N./122°42′07″ W.) and Lopez Island (48°28′43″ N./ 122°49′08″ W.) (2) Coastal bays and estuaries: Critical habitat is designated to include the following coastal bays and estuaries in California, Oregon, and Washington: (vii) Lower Columbia River estuary, Washington and Oregon. All tidally influenced areas of the lower Columbia River estuary from the mouth upstream to river kilometer 74, up to the elevation of mean higher high water, including, but not limited to, areas upstream to the head of tide endpoint
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Review: King County
    King County Department of Natural Resources Literature Review and Recommended Sampling Protocol for Bull Trout in King County Final Draft June 12,2000 …………………Salvelinus confluentus Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources Pam Bissonnette, Director Water and Land Resources Division Nancy Hansen, Manager Watershed Coordination Unit Steve Nicholas, Manager Bull Trout Project Team: David St. John, Project Manager Robert Fuerstenberg, Senior Ecologist Wendy Gable, Communications Specialist Sandy Kraus, Communications Specialist Gino Lucchetti, Senior Ecologist William Mavros, Senior Ecologist Kate O’Laughlin, Senior Ecologist Laurel Preston, Communications Specialist Prepared by: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, WA Edward Connor, Project Manager Historical Research by: Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA Lisa Mighetto, Historian/Project Manager This report should be cited as following: King County Department of Natural Resources. Literature Review and Recommended Sampling Protocol for Bull Trout in King County. Seattle, WA. May, 2000. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Contributions of time, knowledge and expertise from numerous people were essential to the compilation of the information in this report. The efforts of those listed below to assemble and provide technical reports, participate in interviews, review drafts of this report and provide guidance regarding the most efficient manner to gather and present this information have been invaluable. Their spirit of openness and generosity has resulted in a product that will
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish Basin Steelhead State of the Knowledge Report (2008)
    23 January 2008 TO: Snohomish Basin Partners SUBJECT: Snohomish Basin Steelhead State of the Knowledge Report Dear Partners: With the Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee and the Co-managers (WDFW and Tulalip Tribes), Snohomish County contracted the services of R2 Resource Consulting to compile existing information on steelhead in the Snohomish Basin. This information was requested in anticipation of eventual recovery plan development across the Puget Sound Steelhead ESU. The report lays a foundation for technical analysis and planning, but it is not a plan. The Report fulfilled eight key tasks that help provide baseline information for the planning process: 1. Developed an electronic annotated bibliography documenting sources of data and information on life histories, largely at the basin level. 2. Developed a GIS geodatabase of current and historic life histories in habitats across the basin. 3. Developed a map of known spawning and rearing reaches in the basin. 4. Summarized harvest and hatchery management in cooperation with the co-managers. 5. Described available information on migration, spawning, rearing and overwintering habitats across the basin, by brood year and stock. 6. Described existing data sets and their strengths and limitations for planning. 7. Summarized the knowledge regarding genetic differentiation between hatchery and wild stocks. 8. Coordinated with the Technical Committee, Co-managers and NOAA Fisheries. Note: the information in this report was collected from all known sources. The Technical Committee and Forum will need to evaluate this information and put it into context when initiating the planning process. The report may raise technical or policy questions to the fore but is not meant as the definitive answer for steelhead management and/or recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Natural Areas Plan 2007
    STATE OF WASHINGTON Natural S T A HeritageT E Plan 2007 W A S H I N G T O N Caring for your natural resources ... now and forever State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan 2007 September 2007 NATURAL HERITAGE ADVISORY COUncIL Editor Princess Jackson-Smith Voting Members Alan Black, Ph.D., Chair Graphic Design Janelle Downs, Ph.D. Luis Prado Elizabeth Gray, Ph.D. Roger Hoesterey Production Support Cherie Kearney Nancy Charbonneau Robert Meier Merrill Peterson, Ph.D. Cover Photo Cheryl Schultz, Ph.D. Table Mountain, NRCA Wade Troutman DNR Photo Ex-Officio Members Photos used in this publication were taken Jim Eychaner, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation by DNR staff unless noted. Permission Rob Fimbel, State Parks and Recreation Commission to use images was obtained from the Kit Metlen, Department of Natural Resources individual photographers. Elizabeth Rodrick, Department of Fish and Wildlife Jane Rubey, Department of Ecology This publication is available from: Washington State Department DNR ASSET MANAGEMENT AND PLAnnING DIVISION of Natural Resources Pene Speaks, Asst. Division Manager PO Box 47014 Olympia WA 98504-7014 Natural Heritage Program (360) 902-1661 John Gamon, Program Manager Joe Arnett, Botanist Visit our website: Rex Crawford, Ph.D., Ecologist www.dnr.wa.gov Joe Rocchio, Ecologist Janice J. Miller, Information Manager Bibliographic reference to this John Fleckenstein, Zoologist publication should read: Lisa Hallock, Zoologist Jasa Holt, Data Specialist Washington Department of Natural Jack McMillen, Ph.D., Data
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Rivers - Special Rules
    Puget Sound and Coastal Rivers - Special Rules With various fish populations across the state being listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct, WDFW must provide as much protection as possible for all life stages of these populations, in particular for rearing juveniles. For many years, the standard stream rule opened rivers, streams, and beaver ponds to fishing for Game Fish from the first Saturday in June – October 31, with an 8" minimum size, 2 fish/day limit. Consequently, much of the juvenile rearing habitat for resident trout and Dolly Varden and anadromous salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, and Bull Trout was open for fishing. As a result, these juvenile salmonids were at risk of being incidentally caught and may have not survived being handled and released, especially if bait was used. In 2010 we adopted a new management strategy that offered additional protection to stocks in streams draining into Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In 2012 this strategy was extended to the Coast. The basic rule in these waters is that all rivers, streams, and beaver ponds are CLOSED to fishing unless they are listed in the following tables within the Puget Sound, Strait, and Coastal River sections of the pamphlet (see pages 23-51). These tables detail ALL of the fishing opportunity in these drainages. Areas open to fisheries are presented by river system unless the waters drain directly to salt water. All other waters in these drainages are closed to fishing. Beaver ponds located within or connected to streams listed as open toTROUT and Other Game Fish follow the same rules as the stream unless otherwise listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. Acknowledgements The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report. The Watershed Company June 2015 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # Readers Guide .................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework
    [Show full text]
  • Times When Spawning Or Incubating Salmonids Are Least Likely to Be Within Washington State Freshwaters
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife TIMES WHEN SPAWNING OR INCUBATING SALMONIDS ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE WITHIN WASHINGTON STATE FRESHWATERS June 1, 2018 Page 1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists will use this table as a starting point when they consider timing restrictions for any hydraulic project for which they will issue a written HPA. WDFW developed this table based on the general conditions and fish life histories present within broad reaches of stream or sub- basins. Based on the site-specific conditions, circumstances, work proposed, and fish life stages present, timing restrictions for individual hydraulic project sites may differ from those upon which this table was based; therefore alternative work times may be appropriate for some projects. The table identifies times when salmonid eggs and fry are least likely to be incubating within stream gravels. In the case of some large streams, such as the Columbia and Snake Rivers, outmigration timing of smolts was also considered. Check the listing for the county in which in-water work will occur to identify times that may avoid impact to spawning and incubating fish life. Biologists will also consider such things as the expected impact of construction activities, equipment type and access, life history stages of all species of fish life present, presence or absence of spawning habitat and incubating fish at or near the project site, weather (heavy rain, snow, frozen soils), work site containment, wastewater management, best management practices proposed by the project proponent, mitigation measures volunteered or imposed upon the project, and other circumstances and conditions when permitting in-water work.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Traffic Report 2003
    2003 Annual Traffic Report Washington State Department of Transportation In cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration CONTENTS INTRODUCTION …………………….………………………………………………………..……………………………. I THIS YEAR’S FEATURED ITEM …………………………………...………………………………..…………………… II AUTOMATED DATA COLLECTION (ADC) Station Locations and Descriptions ………………………………………………………...……………...……… III Station Listing by Location ………………………………………………………..………….……………...………… VI ADC Site Location Maps …………………………………………………………..………………………..………… VIII ADC Annual Data Summary - Rural Stations ………………………………………………………………..…… X ADC Annual Data Summary - Urban Stations ………………………………………………………………..…… XVIII Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes - Rural Stations - 1994 – 2003 …………………..….………. XXIII Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes - Urban Stations - 1994 – 2003 ……………………...………. XXXI The Expansion of Short-Duration Count Data to AADTs ………………..…………………………………..… XXXVI Conversion Factors – Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) to AADT - Rural Stations – 2003 ……....….…… XXXVII Conversion Factors – Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) to AADT - Urban Stations – 2003 ………....…... XLI FERRY SYSTEMS AND TOLL CROSSINGS Ferry Systems Operated in Washington State - 1994 – 2003 ………….……………………..………………..… XLIV Toll Crossings of the Columbia River - 1994 – 2003 ……………………….………………………………..…….. XLIV ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (AVMT) AVMT Definition and Trends ………………………….……………………………………..………………..……… XLV State Route AVMT Summary by County - 2003 ………………………………………………………………..……
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation History of the Alpine Lakes Part I Bill Beyers & Don Parks1
    The Newsletter of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) 2016 Issue No. 2 Conservation History of the Alpine Lakes Part I Bill Beyers & Don Parks1 While 2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Alpine Lakes Management Act, proposals for preservation of the region date back almost another 40 years. In fact, events critical to conservation in the Alpine Lakes Region date back to 1864 with the authorization of the Northern Pacific Railroad (NPR) to build a transcontinental railroad that could receive a federal land grant. The resulting land ownership pattern, coupled with the extremely high environmental values, have measurably added to the challenge of efforts to protect the area. Figure 1 Land Ownership Classification Pattern Prior to Settlement of NPR Land Claims in 1940. Northern Pacific Land Grant Source: Cascade Mountains Study, by Washington State Planning Council, dated May 1940. The land ownerships (1864-1941) depicted are as of 1937. The NPR expected to receive title to every other square mile This pattern included all of the Wilderness. There were several (odd numbered sections) 40 Alpine Lakes region (Figure 1; variations in the selection miles north and south from uncolored sections promised to procedures that evolved over NPR). the track route that crossed the Continued on page 2 Cascades at Stampede Pass, as In order to acquire the deeds to well as along track that went all this land the NPR was required through the Columbia River to complete several steps including Also in this issue: Gorge and north to Tacoma surveying. The Secretary of and Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Completed Projects
    Completed Contracts Contract Federal Aid Number State Contract Title Contractor Name WSDOT Engineer Region Substantial Physical Contract Final Bid Amount Amount Paid Number Route Name Completion Completion Completion Acceptance Date Date Date Date 003692 I-5-2(161) 005 Trosper Road Interchange Ledcor Industries, Inc. TIM L. AHLES OL 06/13/1991 07/09/1992 07/09/1992 12/08/1992 4,797,177.00 5,400,021.55 003703 IR-IRG-5-3(713) 005 Fife I/C - Signal And Ramp Reconstruction M. A. Segale, Inc. KEVIN DAYTON OL 09/06/1991 12/12/1991 12/12/1991 06/17/1992 549,566.92 734,772.88 003778 BRF-101(84) 101 Queets River Bridge 101/204 And Approaches Donald B Murphy JOHN L. HART OL 08/19/1992 12/23/1992 12/23/1992 09/08/1993 7,909,565.44 10,010,909.27 Contractors Inc 003782 I-5-2(166) 005 Capitol Lake To Plum Street Lakeside Industries TIM L. AHLES OL 02/07/1991 06/04/1991 06/04/1991 10/26/1992 1,979,168.55 2,312,151.41 003783 STATE 016 19th Street Interchange Tucci & Sons, Inc. KEVIN DAYTON OL 06/09/1992 04/01/1993 04/01/1993 08/19/1994 7,198,266.01 8,119,505.05 003784 F-101(115) 101 G.H. Co. Line To Vic. Clearwater Rd. & Northwest Rock, Inc. JOHN L. HART OL 09/18/1991 09/18/1991 09/18/1991 01/22/1992 1,397,899.10 1,726,501.37 Clearwater 003795 STATE 012 Devonshire Road Interchange Scarsella Bros., Inc.
    [Show full text]